In "soft" sciences like sociology, it's much more difficult to detect
manipulation of research, than in "hard" sciences like physics. Soft
science researchers who strive for objectivity deserve an extra
measure of respect. Sadly, far too many researchers are more
concerned with pushing an agenda than with objectivity. These same
problems are not unknown in the world of journalism.
Since the soft sciences and the media have a powerful influence on
social policies in this country, this affects every family and every individual.

is about the broken "science" that's being used
to create law and drive social policy.

Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur's film
"Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories,"
which recently aired on some PBS
stations, has been widely criticized for bias and inaccuracy in
depicting a world in which the only abusive parents are fathers.

The
film's inflammatory statement that "To win custody of the kids
over and against the mother's will is the ultimate victory, short of
killing the kids," ignores the fact that mothers are
perpetrators in 59.1% of child fatalities, whereas the number for
fathers is 39.5%. And when you factor out the 20.4% of fatalities
involving both parents, twice as many children die at the hands of
their mothers as their fathers.1

The film also states that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)
"has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological
Assn." The APA, however, begs to differ. Rhea
K. Farberman, APA Communications Director states, "The
American Psychological Association does not have an official
position on parental alienation syndrome -- pro or con. The
Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect."2

But the real bombshell happened Wednesday, when Glenn Sacks'
website published a report stating that one of the mothers
in the film had been found by a court to have committed
eight counts of child abuse, and that the filmmakers
were informed of that fact, yet chose to portray her as the
victim anyway.3

Back on October 18th, the CEO of Connecticut Public TV
emailed a statement from Tatge and Lasseur regarding the
program. The filmmakers have since posted a modified
version of that reply on their website.4 Here are
some of their claims.

Tatge/Lasseur's
statement: "When we began this project over a year ago, our goal
was to produce a documentary about domestic violence and children.
We had no preconceived notions about the issue ... no specific agenda
to prove or disprove. The finished documentary is simply a result of
where countless hours of extensive research and interviews took us."

There's an old saying, "Who pays the piper calls the tune."
The Mary Kay Ash Foundation, which provided $500,000 of
funding to make this film, has a history of publicity that
focuses on female victimization while conveniently turning a
blind eye to the 36% of domestic violence victims who are
male.5
Are Tatge and Lasseur asking us to believe that they were so
naive as to be unaware of the Mary Kay Ash Foundation's bias
when they agreed to accept the foundation's money? Do they
really expect us to believe the Foundation would have hired
them without an implicit understanding that the film they
were paying for had to discredit Parental Alienation
Syndrome?

It's been more than a week since I submitted questions through
Connecticut Public TV to be forwarded to the filmmakers.
Among the things I asked were how many potential
interviewees did the filmmakers decide not to use, and of
those rejected, how many told stories that would have
contradicted the film's premise?

To date they have sent no response. But other sources may
shed some light on the questions I submitted:

Mike McCormick, director of the American Coalition of
Fathers and Children says that Dominique Lasseur had
scheduled an interview to take place in ACFC's
Washington, D.C. offices last April, but at the last
minute the filmmaker called to say the cameraman was
sick. When McCormick called back to reschedule, Lasseur
told him he already had enough material for the film.

Lee Newman, president of Stop Abuse For Everyone/NH,
reports receiving a similar inquiry from Lasseur, but
Lasseur lost interest when it became clear that Newman's
inclusive perspective was quite different from the
perspective evident in the final cut of the film. After
several attempts by Newman to follow up, the filmmakers
eventually responded saying they already had enough
information.

Tom Gallen, who was married to a violent woman for 17
years, was willing to tell his story of having been
kicked, hit, punched, and bitten, hit in the groin while
he was driving, and attacked with a knife. In spite of
this provocation, he never hit back. He was never
charged with anything. Yet, in spite of a dozen police
reports documenting his wife's abusive behavior, the
divorce judge assigned custody of their three children
to the violent mother. Gallen provided a copy of email
correspondence between him and Lasseur last April, in
which Lasseur thanks him for taking the time to talk on
the phone and asks Gallen to fax any documents Gallen
thinks are relevant. Gallen says Lasseur told him he'd
like to bring him to New York to film an interview, but
Lasseur never followed up and wouldn't reply when Gallen
tried to get in touch.

Gallen also told Lasseur he could put him in touch with
someone else who'd convinced a skeptical judge that PAS
was a factor in that person's case by producing a journal
written by the mother that said God wanted the father
dead because he was evil. Although this is directly
relevant to the topic of the film, Lasseur showed no
interest in following up on this.

Other rejected interviewees may yet surface.

And then of course, there's the mother, found by the court
to have committed child abuse, whom Tatge and Lasseur
portray as a victim, disregarding numerous letters sent to
the filmmakers, CPTV, and the Mary Kay Ash Foundation,
between last April and early October.6

It's impossible to know whether the filmmakers decided on
their own to exclude anything that would call the film's
premise into question, or whether someone above them ordered
them to do so. It's not much of a stretch to consider that
the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation might have insisted
that for their half a million dollars, the film ought to
tell the story they wanted it to tell.

Tatge/Lasseur's
statement: "We as filmmakers are in no position to determine the
scientific validity of PAS. However, the fact remains that the
American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical
Association (AMA), have not recognized PAS as legitimate science."

Whether or not the APA or the AMA have recognized PAS would
be relevant if their film said that PAS has not been
recognized by those organizations. But that's not what the
film says. Instead, it explicitly states that PAS has been
thoroughly debunked by the APA. There's a big difference
between saying the jury's still out and saying the verdict
is guilty.

Tatge/Lasseur's
statement: "Some individuals have expressed concern that the
documentary only features the stories of women as the victims of
domestic violence. Research shows that 'while women are less likely
than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to
eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate
partner.' If we had featured the stories of one man and five women
who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have
grossly overstated the problems of men in this area."

If it's true that "women are five to eight times more likely
than men to be victimized by an intimate partner", then men
constitute around 13.9% of all victims (halfway between the
one man for every five to eight women that they claim). If
they had featured the stories of one man and five women,
they'd give the impression that 16.7% of victims are men.
Overstating the number by 2.8% is what they call "grossly
overstating" the problems of men? Apparently even they
figured out how nonsensical their claim is, because when
they posted the statement on their website, they removed the
word "grossly".

But even the claim that "women are five to eight times more
likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner" is
highly questionable. This number comes from analysis of
reported crimes, and for a whole constellation of reasons,
men are far more reluctant to report being victimized by
their spouses than women are. The National Violence Against
Women Survey documents that victimized women (26.7%) were
twice as likely as victimized men (13.5%) to report their
victimization to the police.7
Surveying representative population samples is a far more
reliable way to estimate who's doing what to whom than
trying to draw conclusions from the non-representative
subgroup that files police reports. Those who want to
minimize the significance of female perpetrated abuse prefer
the distorted picture reflected by crime statistics.

Tatge/Lasseur's
statement: "All we can do is offer, in the most open and
transparent manner, the reasoning and research that went into this
program."

"Open and transparent?" What more can I say?

It would be bad enough if this were just some minor show
aired only once on PBS. But there are reports that the Mary
Kay Ash Foundation is providing a stipend so that every
battered women's organization in the country can put on
private screenings of this film for their local judges and
legislators. As I predicted in my article Breaking the
Science: Misleading Stories8
it appears the film will be used in an attempt to drive
public policy and law.

Years ago, while visiting Saratoga, N.Y., I remember being
bewildered by the strangest monument I'd ever seen. One of
the greatest generals of the American Revolution
memorialized not by a statue of the general, but by a statue
of his boot! The inscription on the monument described his
actions without ever mentioning his name. The hero of that
battle had subsequently tarnished his reputation so
irreparably that the people of Saratoga could not bring
themselves to erect a statue to him. The most they could
stomach was to erect a statue to the leg injury he suffered
in the battle. Filmmakers Tatge and Lasseur have done great
work in the past. Their films of Joseph Campbell's
interviews with Bill Moyers have garnered universal acclaim.
But by their behavior in the making of this film, they have
created an unflattering legacy for themselves, much as
General Benedict Arnold created for himself. And when the
great are brought low by their own actions, that's a tragedy
of Shakespearian proportions.

Mr. Hoisington -- Thank you for your email. The American
Psychological Association does not have an official
position on parental alienation syndrome -- pro or
con. The Connecticut Public Television press release is
incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public
Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their
press release.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Rhea K. Farberman, APR
Executive Director, Public and Member Communications
American Psychological Association

5
Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dept. of Justice,
"Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence
Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against
Women Survey," November 1998, http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172837.pdf
Exhibit 7.

7
Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of
Justice, "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate
Partner Violence, Findings From the National Violence
Against Women Survey," July 2000, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
p. 49.